Andy Cooke - Head of HMICFRS

Foreword

In September 2023, the then Home Secretary commissioned us to inspect police

involvement in politically contested matters. We examined several things: the police’s

policies, processes and decision-making; how officers are trained; the police’s work with external advisory groups; how police deal with non-crime hate incidents; the police’s communication with the public; and whether there are any systemic problems that interfere with police impartiality.

We reviewed over 4,000 documents and held interviews and focus groups with over 400 officers, staff and members of other organisations. We examined the records of 120 non-crime hate incidents. We surveyed the police and the public, for which we received over 4,000 responses. And we analysed over 857,000 police social media posts.

This has been one of the most challenging inspections we have carried out. It deals

with complex legislation and regulations. It deals with policing’s sometimes invidious

role in keeping the peace, meeting the needs of individuals or groups who have

opposing views and simultaneously upholding everyone’s rights. And it involves

contentious, emotive issues.

We found three systemic problems. First, there is a near-total absence of any definition, guidance or judicial consideration of impartiality insofar as it relates to policing. Second, legal application of the Equality Act 2010 is now too complicated. Third, the legislation doesn’t clearly define the boundary between police operational independence and appropriate external influence or accountability.

Most chief officers told us that they experience what they believe to be improper pressure or interference from significant political figures. Chief constables and police and crime commissioners don’t always understand the delineation of their roles and responsibilities. Chief constables need more guidance to help them maintain operational independence.

To improve public trust and confidence, it is important for the police to communicate

effectively with communities. We found forces sometimes overestimate the effectiveness of their communications using social media and rely too much on this communication channel. And there is a lack of guidance to help forces communicate on contentious issues, including by using visible representations such as badges and lanyards, which officers often wear on their police uniform.

2

Many interviewees told us they felt demoralised and let down by forces often not doing

enough to respond to inaccurate or unfair media coverage when they are the subject

of critical reporting and social media comment. Some described political commentary

as being overwhelmingly negative and therefore at risk of distorting public opinion.

Many officers and staff were disappointed by the absence of commentary on the good

work they do every day.

Since 1999, responding to a recommendation in the report of the inquiry into the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence, forces have brought people together into external advisory groups. These groups help inform police decision-making. There is no up-to-date guidance about how advisory groups should work or how they should be formed. And forces use and run these groups in different ways.

The Stephen Lawrence report also recommended police forces record non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs). All forces recognise the important value of this information. But forces haven’t consistently applied the guidance concerning how they should deal with NCHIs. They record and attend more of these incidents than they need to. Police staff networks have existed since the founding of the Christian Police

Association in 1883. And staff networks have played an important role in policing’s

response to concerns about racism, homophobia and misogyny. There is a perception

among police officers and staff that some networks are a higher priority in their force than others. Networks can help forces navigate challenging problems. But when networks become involved in politicised or contentious issues, it can have a negative effect on public trust and confidence.

Having reviewed the evidence, we believe that the lack of clarity within the complex legal and regulatory framework that informs the police approach to politicised or contentious issues is damaging public trust and confidence. In this report, we make 22 recommendations. Our recommendations are designed to provide the clarity needed for police forces to be, and appear to be, impartial by:

• clarifying the impartiality duty and operational independence, and updating

  associated training and guidance;

• reviewing and updating the Equality Act 2010 and associated training and guidance;

• introducing guidance about police attendance and conduct at events;

• improving communication with the public about politicised and contested

• issues, including using social media and visible representations;

• updating guidance relating to the use of external advisory groups;

• updating policies and reviewing the governance arrangements for non-crime hate incidents; and

• strengthening the governance arrangements for police staff networks.

We were due to publish our report in July 2024, but the announcement of a general

election caused us to delay reporting our findings.

3

Summary

Following several incidents that attracted media attention in a way that appeared to

reduce public trust in the police, the then Home Secretary commissioned a report into

activism and impartiality in policing.

Most of the incidents the police deal with receive no media attention. But the minority

of incidents that get coverage give the public insight into police work. Sometimes, that

insight leads to accusations that the police aren’t acting impartially.

This report explores how the police deal with politicised or contested matters. We examine whether the police allow politics or activism to unduly influence them. Public perception of police impartiality has an impact on levels of public trust in policing. Without that trust, police forces can’t keep the public safe.

This has been one of the most challenging inspections we have carried out. It deals with complex legislation and regulations. It deals with policing’s sometimes invidious role in keeping the peace, meeting the needs of individuals and groups who have opposing views and simultaneously upholding everyone’s rights. And it involves contentious and emotive issues.

Systemic issues

All police officers in England and Wales swear allegiance to the Crown through the oath that they take on joining the police service. This includes swearing that they will act with impartiality. The impartiality duty is also set out in police regulations but only within the section covering restrictions on private lives. The obligations on police staff to be impartial are similar to those of police officers. But there is limited case law or guidance to help officers and staff understand what this duty covers and what isn’t covered. The Police Regulations 2003 and relevant guidance need to change to provide greater clarity on the impartiality duty.

We asked police officers and staff whether they act with impartiality. Most police officers and staff told us they believe they do act with impartiality. They understood impartiality in relation to party politics. But there isn’t enough guidance for police officers and staff navigating complex and politicised modern issues.

4

There is no national guidance that describes precisely what the impartiality duty

means, or what it does and doesn’t cover. Although we have seen that training for

chief officers now includes a greater focus on impartiality, it is still not covered well

enough in the training given to all police officers and staff.

Since 2018, the College of Policing has introduced new entry routes and training to

degree standard into policing. Higher education establishments, in collaboration with

respective forces, now provide much of the initial training for student officers. But there is no independent process to check the quality and consistency of the training student

officers receive or the effect on police culture. A comprehensive post-implementation

review of this training is needed.

The Equality Act 2010

The legal interpretation of the Equality Act 2010 is complicated and continues to evolve. It is a lengthy piece of legislation which brought together many different pieces of non-discrimination legislation that preceded it by many decades. Under the 2010 Act, police forces have a duty not to discriminate against members of the public or their own personnel.

The 2010 Act only prohibits discrimination in relation to specified protected characteristics. These are:

• age;

• disability;

• gender reassignment;

• marriage and civil partnership;

• pregnancy and maternity;

• race;

• religion or belief;

• sex; and

• sexual orientation.

Belief as a protected characteristic and the legal framework of what constitutes a belief is complicated. The evolving legal case law results in public authorities and police forces constantly adapting to make sure they comply with their public sector equality duty and maintain accurate equality impact assessments.

Police sometimes make decisions relating to the Equality Act 2010 that attract criticism. This is particularly the case when they interpret sex, gender and gender reassignment in relation to both the public and their workforce. Legislation and national guidance aren’t clear enough. Policing urgently needs greater clarity about how the 2010 Act applies in real-world policing contexts if it is to improve the trust and confidence of the public and support its workforce.

5

It is important that police engage with communities to serve them effectively. But engagement at some public events may make the police appear less impartial, and the actions of individual officers and staff can undermine the best-laid

operational plans. Sometimes, officers and staff get things wrong and the resulting images or footage, propelled by modern media formats, can be extremely damaging.

Police forces often deploy officers and staff to keep the public safe and also to

participate in community engagement activities. Sometimes, police officers and staff attend events voluntarily, including when off duty, to show support and to build

community confidence.

It isn’t always easy to assess whether the police are being impartial. It is even harder

to judge how effectively forces maintain the appearance of impartiality. There are

differing perceptions of what impartiality is across various groups and communities. It is easy to see why some members of the public think police attendance at these events isn’t legitimate and that it diverts resources away from a force’s core roles. The absence of national guidance on police participation in community events increases the risk of the police appearing less than impartial. Officers and staff told us they want explicit guidance on attending events relating to contested or politicised matters. But often police forces don’t respond quickly enough to emerging contentious issues; nor do they prepare their workforce to respond impartially.

Operational independence, politics and impartiality

The Policing Protocol Order 2011 set out new governance arrangements for policing,

including how the component parts of policing governance operate in relation to each other. These include: the Home Secretary; police and crime commissioners (PCCs); mayors; chief constables; police and crime panels; and the London Assembly Police and Crime Committee. While the 2011 Protocol didn’t define police operational independence, it did recognise that Parliament and Government didn’t want police officers to be open to improper political interference.

The role of PCCs has made policing more political. In 2015, the Committee on Standards in Public Life found that policing was experiencing political interference and stated there was confusion among the public, chief constables and PCCs. It also stated that the absence of a definition of operational independence was problematic. On 3 July 2023, the Policing Protocol Order 2023 came into force. The 2023 Protocol includes reserved powers that allow the Home Secretary to intervene and direct all parties within the governance arrangements, in exceptional circumstances. This is to prevent or mitigate risk to the public or national security. But that only applies if the Home Secretary is satisfied, on the advice of the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, that not intervening would result in a police force failing, or national security being compromised.

6

The relationship between PCCs and chief constables involves a delicate balance. Chief constables and PCCs don’t always understand the delineation of their roles and responsibilities. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 states that a chief constable must have due regard to the police and crime plan issued by the PCC or mayoral equivalent. It doesn’t necessarily mean they must implement it.

But some PCCs told us that they hold the chief constable to account for implementing

their police and crime plan rather than for the performance of the force.

Senior officers and staff have varying experiences of working with PCCs. Some were

clear that local politicians weren’t inappropriately influencing policing matters in their force. But others told us that they had recognised attempts to inappropriately influence policing, albeit they had resisted such attempts. The 2023 Protocol doesn’t provide any clarity on what is meant by “improper” when considering political interference. In the 11 years since the first PCC elections, there has been limited judicial guidance on the issue of operational independence.

We heard from local police commanders, officers and staff who regularly receive

operational tasks from their PCC. Some said the level of intrusion by the PCC affects

their ability to carry out their role and to remain impartial in policing their areas. MPs and councillors sometimes try to influence police activity. These politicians are entitled to ask what officers and staff intend to do because they represent their communities and society in general. In all but the most extreme and unusual of circumstances, MPs and councillors should be very mindful not to publicly criticise, interfere with or otherwise try to influence any decisions in advance of the police implementing them. Examples of such actions by MPs were evident prior to protests planned for Remembrance Day 2023.

Some officers and staff felt that political interference can result in a prioritised policing response. The prioritisation of otherwise low-priority investigations and trying to achieve a quick resolution through political influence were among the examples we heard.

Overt attempts to influence operational policing on a national level challenge police impartiality. Most chief officers told us that they sometimes experience what they believe to be improper pressure or interference from significant political figures. Politicians should be cautious when becoming involved in operational decisions. After the event, their potential influence could become public knowledge and affect judicial proceedings. Political influence can have long-lasting and far-reaching consequences. The polarised positions taken by politicians and the public may prevent the police from being seen as impartial.

Senior officers protect their operational independence and they must reject any

attempt by political figures at improper influence. The convention of operational

independence requires everyone – police and politicians alike – to understand and

7

respect their roles, and to vigorously maintain the boundaries between their roles. In doing so, they defend and uphold the principle of policing by consent. Communication with the public

The College of Policing provides guidance to forces about communicating effectively with the public. However, it doesn’t include any guidance to forces about how they should communicate in relation to politicised or contested matters. This needs to change.

All 43 Home Office forces have policies or guidance documents about communicating

with the public, including by using social media. We found that most officers and staff had a good understanding of these policies. However, these communications policies don’t give guidance to the workforce on communicating about contested issues. In a few documents, we saw advice to the workforce about remaining impartial when communicating with the public. This was usually in relation to party politics. Police communications and stories in the media about the police can quickly go viral and potentially have a negative effect on public perception of the police. Force communications policies need to give clear directions to officers and staff about communicating with the public in relation to contested and political issues and social causes.

We found evidence of effective governance arrangements for communication with the

public (notwithstanding the occasional ill-advised comment or mistake made by individual officers or staff).

Officers and staff often use visible representations as a form of communication. These representations can take the form of items such as badges, patches on uniforms, lanyards, flags, signage on police vehicles and digital badges on online profiles.

However, communication using visible representations risks misinterpretation. While one person may see a badge as a sign of support for a particular group or cause, another may see it as a sign that the wearer isn’t impartial. We found that views among the public, officers and staff about the benefits of displaying visible representations vary.

We found policies and force directions about whether the workforce can wear or display such visible representations were inconsistent and sometimes unclear. Chief constables need to be careful in their choices of permitted representations. They should also give clear direction to their workforce about wearing and displaying visible representations.

The media has an important role in communicating police messages to the public and in helping the public to hold the police to account. But forces can quickly lose control of the narrative when the media and social media take an interest in an incident.

8

Many interviewees told us they felt demoralised and let down by forces often not doing

enough to respond to the developing narrative when they are the subject of critical

reporting and social media comment. Often, forces remain silent to avoid prejudicing

ongoing investigations or judicial processes, despite having evidence that could have

corrected reported inaccuracies. But forces shouldn’t hide behind these restrictions and should respond publicly whenever they can, even if the response may not always achieve the same level of publicity as the original incident. The morale of the workforce may be improved by seeing that the force is attempting to make the position clear.

Social media platforms improve engagement by using automated systems, known as algorithms. These filter and select content based on data the platform has about the user, such as age, location, what they have viewed before, and their search history. Algorithms can also influence public perception of the police in a way that forces can’t control.

When we asked officers and staff about communicating with the public, most interviewees focused their answers on communication using social media. But forces may overestimate the effectiveness of their communications using social media and

rely too much on this communication channel. We carried out research into the use of one social media platform by police accounts. It showed that the bulk of police social media posts on that platform received very little interaction.

Other external influences can affect public perception of police effectiveness and impartiality. Many of the chief constables we interviewed stated that they have started to communicate less on social media. They cited two reasons for this. The first was the risk of other social media users misrepresenting or distorting police communications to serve their own agenda. The second was automated bots. In the context of social media, these automated programs – many of which are run by hard-to-identify individuals or organisations from outside the UK – mimic humans and post large volumes of content very rapidly. They may have undue influence on public opinion, including opinion about the police. The police need a greater understanding of the influence of bots and other external influences, and how this can fuel community tension.

The Equality Act 2010 and the public sector equality duty

There is consistent evidence that forces comply with the requirements of the Equality

Act 2010 when developing policies and processes. Completing equality impact

assessments helps forces comply with this legislation. We found that there isn’t enough training in some forces for those completing equality impact assessments, and forces don’t always complete them consistently or thoroughly enough. So police forces need to improve their processes for equality impact assessments.

9

Forces don’t systematically review all policies and processes relating to the Equality

Act 2010. They should keep all policies up to date so that they reflect changes in the law and allow officers and staff to make decisions based on the correct information. The Equality Act 2010 sets out a number of primary obligations for public authorities, specifically in relation to the nine protected characteristics. We found some examples

of forces going beyond these obligations, but with a rationale or justification for doing so. But some external organisations believe forces aren’t justified when they go beyond or contravene their equality legislation obligations.

Forces are trying to navigate this complex legal framework. They need to balance the

rights of individuals, some who hold diametrically opposite views, and still find a way

through the complex area of equality legislation. This applies to their own policies as

well as to their work protecting the public. We found that some forces have a policy of

placing particular emphasis on those with certain protected characteristics, while others give equal support to officers and staff with different protected characteristics. Police forces often struggle to recruit and retain candidates from certain

minority groups. For employment purposes, the 2010 Act allows positive action, provided it is justified and proportionate. However, some officers and staff confuse positive action with positive discrimination. Where the workforce didn’t fully understand the principles of positive action, we found officers and staff who felt frustrated, resentful and disadvantaged. And in some cases, positive action wasn’t always welcomed by those it aimed to support.

Learning and development in relation to the Equality Act 2010

Many of the topics covered by the Equality Act 2010 are the subject of emerging case law, which police forces and the College of Policing need to interpret and respond to quickly.

When providing their workforce with training in relation to the Equality Act 2010, some

forces use a combination of external organisations and members of local communities to help attendees understand the importance and impact of their interpretation and use of the legislation. Officers and staff told us that this face-to-face training brings diversity learning to life.

Working with external groups or organisations, including those which hold views that others could find challenging, is important. We found that forces continually review the

appropriateness of relationships with external training providers and advisors and

assess their credibility.

Most forces use the College of Policing’s online hate crime and diversity, equality and

inclusion (DEI) material. Many officers and staff are critical of the online learning for DEI training. Some forces have developed their own training material to complement

what the College of Policing provides.

10

Forces make sure all officers receive equality training when they first join, but refresher training on equality is inconsistent and some forces don’t give it. Equality learning and development for supervisors is also inconsistent. However, we found that equality-related learning and development for senior officers is more comprehensive and includes a greater focus on DEI.

Advisory groups

Police forces have been using advisory groups for many years. Since 1999, forces have brought together people and organisations to form external advisory groups that discuss policing-related concerns, particularly in communities with low trust in the police. The number and use of external advisory groups has increased since the last guidance was produced in 2015.

Guidance on the role of external advisory groups is outdated and doesn’t reflect the

increase in the number and use of such groups. Police forces need updated guidance

to help them use external advisory groups more consistently and effectively. Most forces have a police officer lead for external advisory groups at a strategic level. But it is often unclear how forces bring together governance and oversight of the separate groups. The terms of reference for advisory groups are often unclear. This means that some forces are unclear about how they could or should use their external advisory groups.

We also found that there was little guidance to forces about the recruitment and selection of external advisory group members. As a result, this process varies across forces. Some force recruitment processes for external advisory group members require vetting. Other forces take a less intrusive approach as they have found that vetting can be a barrier to recruiting members.

Forces use external advisory groups differently. Not all forces consult these groups

when making policies, and the way forces use the groups to scrutinise police powers varies. Many forces use external advisory groups to reassure communities during or after critical and major incidents. Forces also frequently make good use of these groups before, during and after planned events. During our inspection, we heard many examples of where the engagement with these groups had worked well in relation to such incidents and events. However, some external advisory group members felt that forces didn’t use them enough.

External advisory groups aren’t always representative of local communities. Forces often struggle to attract people with a variety of lived experience to their advisory groups. Some forces had targeted recruitment towards people with specific protected characteristics or from certain communities. However, retaining members can be difficult.

11

External advisory groups aren’t always independent. Most forces don’t review the

membership of external advisory groups, and some members have been in post for a

long time. A tenure policy for all members would help to make sure that these groups

remain independent, representative and effective.

Training of advisory group members is inconsistent. Many forces didn’t have an initial

training package for either external advisory group members or for police officers and

staff who engaged with these groups. Forces should consider what training external

advisory groups need, depending on their purpose. Agreed minimum standards of training would reduce confusion and give the group members the confidence to scrutinise and challenge police policies and processes.

External advisory group members often feel undervalued. Some members believed that their forces valued their input, but we heard that others felt undervalued and underused.

Non-crime hate incidents

The origins of non-crime hate incident recording go back to the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. The inquiry report recommended the use of a universal definition for a racist incident. It also recommended that police record and investigate equally racist incidents that are crimes, and those that are not. The report also suggested the development of codes of practice to provide a comprehensive system of reporting and recording such incidents and crimes.

A case in 2020 led to a change in guidance for how police deal with non-crime hate

incidents (NCHIs). In this case, an individual challenged the College of Policing in the

High Court regarding its authorised professional practice (APP) on NCHIs. The High Court judgment from this case was then appealed to the Court of Appeal, which determined that the APP guidance was unlawful and a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression. Following this case, the then Home Secretary issued ‘Non-Crime Hate Incidents: Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data’ (the Code). This was supported by the College of Policing, which updated the NCHI APP.

Differences between the NCHI Code of Practice and the Equality Act 2010 can cause confusion. The NCHI Code of Practice contains “particular” characteristics that are included in hate crime legislation. The Equality Act 2010 contains different “protected” characteristics.

There is inconsistency in the way forces have responded to the Code and the NCHI APP. All of the forces inspected had adopted or were in the process of adopting the APP. But there were significant variances in the actions taken by forces, and how effectively they had implemented the changes. This meant that working practices sometimes differed from policies, leading to inconsistencies in how forces dealt with NCHIs.

12

The recording of hate-related incidents, and the ability to retrieve data, is a significant

challenge in some forces. These forces have difficulty in identifying NCHIs on their systems or can’t differentiate between an NCHI and a hate crime. This hampers the ability of the force to effectively analyse data and understand the scale and nature of hate-related incidents.

Some forces don’t effectively assess reported incidents, resulting in incorrect recording and inefficient deployment of police resources. The initial assessment is a key stage in the response to reported incidents. Call takers may not be best suited to make this complicated assessment. Forces should make sure that only personnel with the relevant knowledge, and sufficient capacity, to make informed decisions assess reported incidents and determine the appropriate response.

Force review processes for NCHIs and hate crimes don’t always provide effective scrutiny. Ineffective review processes in some forces meant that they routinely deployed resources, and allocated incidents for investigation, unnecessarily. A risk-averse approach and a lack of knowledge have led to incorrect recording of NCHIs and hate crimes. Some officers and staff were fearful of being criticised for failing to record a crime and would record a crime without considering if the incident amounted to an NCHI, or if in fact no record was needed.

The College of Policing has provided online training in relation to NCHIs. However, some officers and staff found this training confusing. This is a complex area and some forces have supplemented the online learning with additional material. Forces can get valuable information and intelligence from recorded NCHIs. The information and intelligence gained from NCHIs can help identify vulnerable people and those who are being victimised, or who may need safeguarding. This also enables forces to identify and assess any threats, trends or community tensions. Under the new Code, there is a higher threshold for recording personal data in relation to NCHIs than other non-crime incidents. Some interviewees believed that the higher threshold was unnecessary and that existing legislation and common law provided suitable restrictions for recording personal data where appropriate. In accordance with the Code, in some cases NCHI records, or the personal data they contain, should be removed from force systems. Forces view this as challenging and unnecessary.

13

Staff networks

Police officers aren’t employees, they are Crown servants. They don’t share the same

rights as other employees, and staff associations represent them. Police staff are employees and they can choose whether they wish to have representation by joining

a trade union. There are several trade unions that operate in support of police staff. Staff support networks are different to the statutory associations and unions that operate within policing.

Staff networks aren’t a new phenomenon. The Christian Police Association was the first to be founded in 1883. Since the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence in April 1993, police forces have sought to actively respond to widespread concerns about racism, homophobia and misogyny, and do better in attracting, recruiting, and retaining officers and staff from diverse backgrounds. Staff networks have an important role in helping forces make these improvements.

There are 11 national networks and more than 200 local networks across forces in

England and Wales. The structure, oversight and governance arrangements for these networks aren’t consistent, and some operate almost independently from forces or the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC). Police officers and staff involved in networks at both a local and national level must be accountable to the same standards of impartiality as every other officer or member of staff. It is the responsibility of the officer’s or staff member’s home force to maintain oversight of their conduct and behaviour.

Staff network activity, such as offering advice on, or communicating about, government policy, could lead to a perception that they aren’t impartial. Staff networks need clearer guidance to mitigate the risk of them appearing to be political. National police networks have an important role in policing, but their role and terms of reference need to be clear and consistent. And they must adhere to the same standards, oversight and transparency as all police officers and staff members. Networks can help forces navigate challenging incidents. But when networks become involved in politicised or contentious issues, it can have a negative effect on public trust and confidence.

Local networks mirror the valuable work of the national networks. But not all networks

receive the same level of support. While the national networks have a direct relevance to and relationship with historical challenges around recruitment and retention, many of the local networks don’t.

Forces’ rationales and processes for allocating funding to networks is inconsistent. Most of the inspected forces provide a small budget for their networks. We saw a variance in the annual funding forces allocated to networks. Forces need to prioritise their support for networks in line with their recruitment and retention requirements. This will help them maximise the benefits of improved recruitment, retention and progression for those groups where progress has been too slow.

14

We spoke to many officers and staff involved in different networks and were consistently impressed by their dedication, passion and commitment. However, officers and staff don’t always understand how and why force leaders prioritise networks. With a robust rationale and clear communication, a force may justify its position. Without justification, forces risk discriminating against other groups. Local networks need clear guidance on their role, particularly in relation to politicised or contested issues. Many of those we spoke to recognised that any overt involvement in conventional party politics was unacceptable. It wasn’t clear to us that all personnel were alert to, or felt the same responsibility about, involvement in social politics or causes. Officers, staff and networks need clear guidance to help them navigate these complicated topics.

In the forces we inspected, we spoke to many police officers and staff who told us how important networks were in their force. But not all officers and staff value the work of networks. Some of them felt that networks spent too much time on non-policing issues and that some of them were too powerful. Public views on the benefits provided by networks are mixed.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1

By 31 July 2025, the Home Office, Police Staff Council, College of Policing and National Police Chiefs’ Council should work together to update the Police Regulations 2003, the Police Staff Council’s standards of professional behaviour for police staff, and associated guidance so that they:

• set out in clear terms what the impartiality duty means for officers and staff, both on and off duty; and

• provide clear guidance on what the impartiality duty means in relation to contested or politicised causes. The College of Policing should update the Code of Ethics and relevant learning and development material accordingly.

Recommendation 2

By 31 March 2025, the College of Policing, working in partnership with other education organisations, should complete a post-implementation review of the education provisions under the police constable entry routes. This review should make sure that the learning provided to new police recruits is appropriate, consistent and impartial.

15

Recommendation 3

By 31 July 2025, the Government Equalities Office and Equality Hub should review and update the ‘Public Sector Equality Duty: guidance for public authorities’, and produce further guidance, to provide clarity in relation to the protected characteristics and how they apply to policing and police powers. This work should include recommendations for legislative amendments to the Equality Act 2010, for the consideration of Parliament.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing, in consultation with the Independent Office for Police Conduct, should then work together to produce updated national guidance for forces. They should review this guidance annually and make sure it is updated to reflect any changes that result from developing case law.

Recommendation 4

By 31 March 2025, the National Police Coordination Centre should amend the online reporting form to require forces to provide information about the effectiveness of the policing style adopted in the event or operation and any allegations relating to impartiality. All forces should make sure their post-event learning reviews include evidence of the effectiveness of commanders’ strategies in terms of policing style and impartiality. The National Police Coordination Centre should include information about policing style and impartiality in the learning updates they send to forces.

Recommendation 5

By 31 July 2025, the National Police Chiefs’ Council should publish national guidance for forces in relation to officers and staff attending and participating at community events. This should include guidance on:

• the decision about attendance at or absence from the event;

• communication with the public and the workforce about the reasons for attendance at or absence from the event;

• the dress code for those attending;

• the conduct of those attending; and

• whether attendance is on or off duty.

The College of Policing should reflect this guidance within the relevant authorised

professional practice.

16

Recommendation 6

By 31 March 2025, the National Police Chiefs’ Council should add contentious issues to its existing horizon-scanning process. It should co-ordinate consistent policing responses to these issues and national communication to the public.

Recommendation 7

By 31 July 2025, the Home Office, in consultation with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, should publish guidance for the term “operational independence” within the Policing Protocol Order 2023.

Recommendation 8

By 31 July 2025, the College of Policing should update its engagement and communication authorised professional practice to give more up-to-date information about communicating using social media platforms. It should also include guidance about how to communicate about politicised and contested matters. The College of Policing should regularly review the updated guidance to make sure it keeps pace with changes to social media.

Recommendation 9

Within six months of the College of Policing updating its engagement and communication authorised professional practice, forces should update their policies to reflect the College of Policing advice on communicating about politicised and contentious issues.

Recommendation 10

By 31 March 2025, chief constables should give clear direction to their workforce about wearing and displaying visible representations. They should make sure that they clearly communicate such policies to the workforce and that they enforce the policy. Chief constables should regularly review these policies to respond to new causes that arise. The National Police Chiefs’ Council should support chief constables in achieving a consistent approach.

17

Recommendation 11

By 31 July 2025, the National Police Chiefs’ Council should carry out or commission research into the influence of bots and non-local social media users, and how this can fuel community tension. The College of Policing should include any learning from this research in the revised engagement and communication authorised professional practice.

Recommendation 12

By 31 July 2025, chief constables should make sure that those personnel responsible for completing equality impact assessments are appropriately trained to do so. Chief constables should also make sure there are effective governance measures in place to improve the quality of these assessments and make sure they are completed when required.

Recommendation 13

By 31 March 2025, all chief constables should audit their policies that include or relate to the Equality Act 2010. They should make sure there is an effective process for regularly reviewing and updating policies and have appropriate governance arrangements in place.

Recommendation 14

By 31 March 2025, the College of Policing should work with forces to evaluate and improve diversity, equality and inclusion training. This should include a consideration of the effectiveness of online training for this type of material. The College of Policing should regularly review and refresh guidance on the protected characteristic of belief, in line with emerging case law.

18

Recommendation 15

By 31 March 2025, the College of Policing should publish new guidance on the role and use of external advisory groups, taking into consideration the results of its research and other relevant work. As a minimum, this should include guidance on:

• terms of reference;

• selection and role of the chair;

• vetting or other appropriate security measures;

• recruitment, selection and tenure of members;

• reward, payment and expenses; and

• training.

Recommendation 16

By 31 March 2025, forces should update and implement their policies and guidance for non-crime hate incidents to provide clear direction to officers and staff for the assessment and recording of, and response to, these incidents.

Recommendation 17

By 31 March 2025, forces should make sure their recording processes for hate-related incidents allow them to analyse data relating to hate crimes and non-crime hate incidents.

Recommendation 18

By 31 March 2025, chief constables should make sure their force has an effective and efficient process for assessing and reviewing hate incidents.

Recommendation 19

By 31 July 2025, the College of Policing should work with forces to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of non-crime hate incident training. This should include consideration of the most effective methods of providing this training.

19

Recommendation 20

By 31 March 2025, forces should make sure they clearly define in policies the

requirements for recording personal data for non-crime hate incidents. If the force approach differs from ‘Non-Crime Hate Incidents: Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data’, the force should record the rationale for this.

Recommendation 21

By 31 March 2025, the National Police Chiefs’ Council should publish a national terms of reference and governance structure for staff networks. The National Police Chiefs’ Council and forces should withdraw funding and resources from any staff network that doesn’t comply with these governance arrangements. The National Police Chiefs’ Council should also publish guidance to forces to make sure local and national networks operate in a consistent and coherent manner.

Recommendation 22

By 31 March 2025, all forces should make sure they have a robust assessment process for allocating funding and giving support to their networks. They should prioritise funding and support based on local need.

See Full report:

https://hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/publications/activism-and-impartiality-in-policing/